Diebold, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 67 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

YOUNG & SELDEN CO ., DIVISION OF DIEBOLD, INC. 67
4; Respondent's alleged discriminatory refusal to reinstate the strikers
On October 11, the Union terminated the strike and reinstatement of the strikers
was sought and rejected on the ground that their positions were filled with no exist-
ing vacancies available. While one paragraph of the complaint appears to charge
that Respondent refused reinstatement on discriminatory grounds, no such evidence
was offered and no such finding is warranted , at least independently of the further
contention about to be considered.
This contention is that , as alleged in the complaint , what began as an economic
strike was followed by unfair labor practices by Respondent , so that an unfair labor
practice strike having thus come into existence , the strikers were entitled to reinstate-
ment upon their subsequent unconditional application . My findings that Respondent
did not engage in the prior unfair labor practices asserted leaves no factual or legal
basis for this contention 21
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings and upon the entire record of the case , I recommend
that the complaint herein be dismissed.
n In the circumstances , I am not called upon to determine whether an unconditional
application was, in * fact, made by or on behalf of the strikers when the strike was termi-
nated. However, if this point were material its determination would require consideration
of evidence having some tendency to indicate that, in negotiations surrounding the re-
instatement matter, the Union may have made other proposals or demands which qualified
the reinstatement request.
Similarly, I need make no findings or conclusions with respect to Respondent's evidence
and contentions concerning striker misconduct as a bar to reinstatement.
Young & Selden Co., Division of Diebold , Incorporated and
Amalgamated Lithographers of America , Local No. 14, Inde-
pendent and Bookbinders and Bindery Women 's Union, Local
No. 2, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 4-RC,-5698 and 4-RC-57.7. May
21, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On December 30, 1963, the Regional Director for the Fourth Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Elections in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Employer, in accordance with Section. 102.67
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed a
timely request for review on the grounds that the Regional Director
erroneously found appropriate two separate units of (a) all litho-
graphic production employees, and (b) a residual unit of all bindery,
stock, shipping, and receiving employees. The Board, by telegraphic
order dated January 30, 1964, granted the request for review and
stayed the elections.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
lnember panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
147 NLRB No. 9.
68 DECISIONS OF'-NATION-AL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
The 'Board has considered the entire record -in this case with re-
spect to the Regional Director's determination under: review 'and
makes the following findings :
At the Philadelphia plant herein involved, the-Employer "imprints"'
certain limited information, such as the names of individual deposi-
tors and magnetic code numbers -on bank checks which were pre-
printed at the Employer's Baltimore plant, referred to below. Upon
completion of the imprinting operation, the checks are bound into
booklets. In such work the Employer employs' two' IBM or Flexo-
writer operators, five Davidson press operators, nine bindery em-
ployees, two letterpress employees, and two shipping clerks. There is:
no history of bargaining at this plant.
The "imprinting" operation is as follows : An employee manually
types at predesignated locations a paper master or plate' on an IBM
typewriter or prepares tapes or punch cards which a Flexowriter or
Friden machine utilizes to print the paper master automatically. On
occasion, the paper master may be prepared by letterpress operators:
on Vandercook and Friel machines. The paper master prepared on
the typewriter or Flexowriter is proofread by the person operating
these machines; the paper master prepared by the letterpress machine
is proofread by the bindery employees. Then the press or dupli-
cator operators, using the three Davidson and two multilith offset.
presses, imprint the checks from the paper master?. Bindery em-
ployees inspect the checks and subsequently cut, stitch, and bind them
into booklets. The shipping clerks package and mail the checks to
customer banks.
A comparison of the Employer's printing operation at its Balti-
more, Maryland, plant' with its Philadelphia imprinting operation
illustrates the relatively simple and unskilled work at the latter loca-
tion. Thus, in the Baltimore manufacturing division, employees are
required to serve a 3 to 4 year apprenticeship to attain the necessary
skills to operate the various types of offset presses, including color'
presses, utilizing metal plates with four different types of images
(line work, solids, halftones, and screens) and of varying size and
thickness.. They make necessary adjustments for printing on paper
of different surfaces and thicknesses and they mix required colors.
and inks. In contrast, the check imprinting operation at the Phila-
delphia plant involves the use of only a paper master of one type.
' On "rare and. unusual occasions " the Employer uses a metal plate.
2 Most of the Employer's printing is produced on the Davidson and multilith presses.
Occasionally a special order is printed by the letterpress process.
3 At the Employer's Baltimore plant there are two divisions. The manufacturing divi-
sion prints certain basic legends and designs on checks. The imprinting division, like the
Philadelphia plant, imprints thereon certain other information. '
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 69
image (line work) of one size and thickness, standardized paper of
one surface and thickness, and one preprepared ink. For this work,
employees can be trained within 2 to 4 weeks.
All employees, except the IBM typists, at the Philadelphia plant
work in an open production area, under the supervision of one fore-
man. They all have the same hours, fringe benefits, holidays, and
vacation and insurance benefits. None of the employees is hired to
operate one piece of equipment or to serve in any one capacity. Ac-
cording to the Employer's testimony, an employee is hired for a
specific "bottleneck." Further, according to the Employer, as the
imprinting service must often be performed on short notice, an effi-
cient operation depends on cross-training and the use of employees
where they are needed.'
In these circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the im-
printing operation is relatively simple, and absent any showing that
the employees engaged in the imprinting process are required to pos-
sess any substantial special skill, training, or experience, we find that
they do not constitute an appropriate lithographic production unit.'
Having found that a lithographic production unit is not appropriate
herein, we also find that the bindery, stock, shipping, and receiving
employees do not constitute an appropriate residual unit. We further
find that only an overall production and maintenance unit at the
Philadelphia plant is appropriate. As no union seeks to represent
such broader unit, we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
Exhibits introduced into the record show that some employees perform several different
functions.
5 See General Motors Corporation , GM Photographic Engineering Center, 143 NLRB 647.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4367. May 2. ,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23,1964, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company had engaged in and was engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Decision.
147 NLRB No. 8.